Full Judgment
2. It is the case of the applicants that in response to the notification dated 10.08.2004 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the Training course of Act Apprentices under apprentice Act, 1961 for the year 2003-04 the applicants submitted their applications and were issued Hall Tickets for appearing the written examination which was held on 13.3.2005. The applicants were issued railway pass to come over to Hyderabad for appearing the said examination. The applicants appeared in the written examination held on 13.3.2005 along with others and got selected and thereafter the respondents conducted oral test (viva) on 28.3.2005 at Basic Training Centre, Carriage Work Shop. On being selected the respondents asked the applicants to appear for the medical test. However, the respondents have postponed the medical test and intimated the same to the applicants on 11.4.2005. When the matter stood thus the first respondent issued a notification dated 17.5.2005 stating that the earlier selection was cancelled. It is the contention of the applicants that the respondents thereafter issued fresh notification and published the same in local newspapers dated 3.6.2005 inviting applications from the candidates who got selected in the selection held on 13.3.2005 for the post of Act apprentice by fixing the date of written test and viva.
Questioning the said cancellation vide notification dated 17.5.2005 the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking for the aforesaid relief. The applicant has enclosed the impugned notification dated 17.05.2005 as Annexure 1 at page-7 of the OA.3. The contends of the fresh notification dated 3.6.2005 enclosed as Annexure A-2 are extracted below: Engagement of Act Apprentices under Apprentice Act, 1961 - Recruitment for the year 2003 - 04.
Written examination and viva-voce held on 13.03.05 and 28.03.2005 respectively for engagement of Act Apprentices for the year 2003-04 in Lallaguda Workshop. The panel of selected candidates published vide letter No.LGD/P.98/Act.App/2003-04, Dt. 30.03.05 has been treated as cancelled vide notification No. LGD/P.98/Act.App/2003-04, Pt.II dt. 17.05.05.
Consequently selection is being processed afresh and accordingly the written examination is proposed to be conducted on 03.07.05 All those candidates who were found eligible to appear for the written examination initially held on 13.03.05 are only eligible for appearing the written examination. Individual call letters are being sent to the candidates in this regard.
4. Learned Counsel for the applicant argued strenuously that when the applicants were duly selected in the written examination and viva voce the respondents are not justified in cancelling the entire selection and issuing fresh notification calling the candidates selected in the earlier examination. He further submits that respondents are also not justified in calling only those candidates who were found eligible to appear for the written examination initially held on 13.03.05. They have to give wide publicity in this regard. However, the applicants have not questioned the fresh notification which is enclosed as Annexure A-2 to the OA. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that in order to accommodate the children of SC Railway employees the respondents have taken such decision and that the respondents ought to have completed the earlier selection and if so necessary to accommodate the children of SC railway employees they would have accommodated in some other manner. However, no such material is available before us to show that the respondents, in order to accommodate the children of SC Railway employees taken such decision.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of AP in Writ Petition No. 17144 of 2004 & W.P.M.P. No. 2461 of 2005.
6. Respondents have contested the application by filing a counter reply. The respondents have admitted the contention of the applicant in regard to issuance of the notification dated 10.08.2004 and that the applicants were selected in written test and viva voce and that before the medical test could be conducted the selection process was cancelled. It is the specific case of the respondents that before the candidates were subjected to medical examination, it was reported in the press that large scale malpractices were indulged in the examination process which was investigated into by the vigilance and it was found that blatant irregularities were detected in the examination including that no decoding of names of the candidates was done; that inspite of clear directions that no marks are allowed for over writing, the examiners allowed marks; that wrong answers were also awarded marks and the evaluators who have evaluated the answer sheets did not even sign the papers. The respondents have also categorically stated that action has been initiated against the officers who were found responsible for the same.
7. This Tribunal at the time of considering the prayer for interim relief on 24.06.05 perused the answer sheets and the entire record leading to the cancellation of the examination. In regard to the allegations made by the applicants that pressure was brought on the respondents through unions that since children of some of the railway employees have not been selected the selection appears to have been cancelled, the respondents have stated that those allegations have no basis whatsoever and they have also denied that there has ever been any such representation much less any pressure brought on to the administration for cancelling the examination. It is only because of certain irregularities detected in the examination conducted and as such the candidates were informed by the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 11.04.2005 not to report for medical examination since it was postponed. Subsequently, on the detailed investigation by the administration as regard to the irregularities, the administration has felt it necessary to cancel the panel also the selection process conducted. Accordingly the 2nd respondent had issued notification vide letter dated 17.05.2005. They have admitted that the notification published in the local newspapers on 03.06.2005 indicating that all those candidates who were found eligible to appear for the written examination initially held on 13.03.2005 are only eligible for appearing written examination proposed to be conducted on 03.07.2005.
It is also the contention of the respondents that taking the selected candidates as apprentices doe snot mean that they are to be given appointment in Railways. However, the grievance of the applicants is in regard to cancellation of entire selection process vide impugned letter dated 17.05.2005.
8. Heard Mr. Jalli Kanakaiah learned Counsel for the applicants and Mr.
N.R. Devaraj learned standing counsel for the respondents. We have gone through the facts of the case and material papers placed before us. We have also gone through the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicants.
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances we find that in the case in hand the respondents have specific or categorical finding supported by concrete and relevant material that widespread infirmities of all pervasive nature, which could be really said to have undermined the very process itself and that cancellation of entire selection is only open to them to get suitable candidates for the post. It is not the case of the respondents that there are limited number of candidates who are involved in malpractices and they could be identified. In such case, the respondents, instead of cancelling the entire selection would go for cancellation of examination of those candidates who could be identified as involved in the malpractices. In the case before the Hon'ble High Court relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicants we find that there were 65 candidates who were said to have been involved in malpractices whereas in the present case the entire selection process suffered from various irregularities. That being so, the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicants is not applicable to the case of he applicants in hand. It will not be out of place to mention that the Apex court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and Anr.
...Applying an unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go bye to contextual considerations throwing to winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably required to meet the situation. In short, the Competent Authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selection, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual situation found too, and totally in excess of the nature of gravity of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational.
10. In the case in hand, there were blatant irregularities detected in the examination including that no decoding of names of the candidates was done, that inspite of clear directions that no marks are allowed for over writing the examiners allowed marks; that wrong answers were also awarded marks and the evaluates who have evaluated the answer sheets did not even sign the papers, we are therefore of the view that the respondents are right in cancelling the entirety of the selections.
The applicants have not filed any rejoinder refuting the contentions of the respondents made in their counter reply.
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances we do not find any merit in this OA. OA is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.